Pages

Friday, October 31, 2008

Anti-Obama groups have been all over the map in attempts to portray him as a bad man because of his associations with bad people. The first line of defense for Obama was that he didn't really know these people very well. Or that - in the case of William Ayers - the acts of the latter were perpetrated when the former was a mere lad. Obama issued a lukewarm rebuke of what he called Ayers' "deplorable acts". Swell.

When the Obama tactic of claiming little more than a passing awareness of Ayers was slowly whittled down to actuality, the game plan shifted into pointing out that Ayers is now a "respected" and tenured professor at UIC*. Now, with only four days before the election and Obama in the "lead", the game plan is to kill the clock.

The good news is, we still have all of our time-outs left and they're pinned deep in their own end. We may get the ball one more time but we must clamp down on defense. Let's go...

Rashid Khalidi is another character in Obama's life, and another whom he has tried to disavow. Obama foes focused solely on the Ayers connection may see Khalidi as a side note or a fork in the road, but he fits quite nicely in Obama's circle of friends, for here is the common thread; anti-Israel activities and beliefs. The picture of Obama speaking before an audience at AIPAC is just delicious. It is the wolf speaking at a sheep convention.

Rashid Khalidi is a Palestinian mouthpiece and one who views the existence of Israel as a naqba (catastrophe). William Ayers also holds extremely anti-Israel views. And Obama has been very close with them both. Despite the LA Times withholding a video of Khalidi's farewell (from UIC) dinner - which Obama attended and spoke at - more information is available that makes such a tape moot anyway.

Rashid Khalidi was the director of the PLO's press agency WAFA from 1976 to 1982, at a time when the PLO was conducting a massacre of 37 Israeli civilians in a bus on Israel's coastal road, the brutal murder of a four-year-old Israeli girl in Nahariya, and numerous other terrorist killings of Israeli civilians. The PLO was also waging a brutal war against the Lebanese Christian community during this period, and carried out numerous massacres of Lebanese Christians; the worst of these was the killing of about 500 people in the village of Damour.

And then this:

...Obama gave Khalidi a glowing eulogy. He said that he and his wife Michelle had been frequent dinner guests of the Khalidis, and that the Khalidis had frequently babysat for the Obama children.

The only people I ever allowed to watch my children were family members or people that I trusted implicitly, never people with whom I was casually acquainted. Another example of either Obama's judgement or veracity, i.e, did he know the Khalidis more intimately than he led us to believe, or did he entrust his young children to a person with whom he was only vaguely familiar? More importantly, is either instance indicative of the type of person who should be trusted to be America's leader?

Less well known are Ayers' extremely anti-Israel views. Here are some samples of his comments about the Arab-Israel conflict on his web blog: "In modern times, the founders of Israel used terrorism against the British and the Palestinians; the Palestinians use terrorism against Israel; and Israel currently employs terror in the service of settlement and occupation;"

I write this in a last-ditch effort to make people aware of what they may inflict upon themselves on November 5th, and what they may wake up to on January 21st. But it is also an indictment of the entire liberal mindset and their myopia where forgiveness - or forgetfulness - is concerned. Allowing enemies of America to become teachers of her youth is an abomination unto itself. Subsequently using the respected status bestowed upon them as validation of their hatred for the country that made it all possible is infuriating.

Obama may just become our ruler - a description I use by no accident - in four days, in spite of his associations with enemies of America.

Should Charles Manson ever receive his much-coveted parole, Howard Dean should be worried. Manson may find his niche as Chairman of the DNC.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Barack Obama has smashed the record for campaign fundraising, crushing his opponent easily and compiling over 605 million dollars. The irony that seems to have been largely overlooked by the media is the fact that his opponent is responsible for one half of the McCain-Feingold bill, designed to reign in huge caches of cash in election campaigns. It was also designed to remove corruption from campaign donations. It failed miserably.

Early on in the campaign season, McCain pledged to accept public financing for his campaign, which would have limited his warchest, and Obama agreed to do the same. Later, Obama backed out on that pact and decided to go his own way. That has succeeded splendidly, for Obama. But why?

That is a difficult question to answer, since the Obama campaign will not release its donor list on people contributing less than $200, while McCain is an open book in this regard. It is certainly not illegal for Obama to not list them, but what about transparency?

The Washington Post has finally begun to examine Obama's donors, and they report a very interesting fact:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Not only are they accepting untraceable donations, they have, according to Little Green Footballs, deliberately disabled the online payment industry’s standard safeguards against fraud. An excerpt:

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

Predictably, this is all ignored by the mainstream media, with the exception of WaPo, thus far. If this kind of thing were happening in the McCain campaign, it would certainly be examined in the media by proctology, but the media has been reticent to offer anything about Obama that isn't favorable.
Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 27, 2008

It seems that Joe Biden got asked some more tough questions, and yet another local television station is on the Obama campaign blacklist. You would think that they would just do what they really wanted all along; stay with CNN and the Daily Kos.

Here we are, 3 years and 51 weeks into this election, and we are still being told the key issues are not being addressed. Everyone wants to talk about the economy and who has the best plan to bring us out of the crisis. But, don’t you have to be able to trust your candidate to be open and up front with you?

I’ve heard over and over for the past month from our overdone media that McCain is off message. That he isn’t addressing the problems that the country faces. Not True! McCain has addressed every issue from taxes to healthcare, to our need for military victory. But, he is also addressing something far more important. We have to be able to trust our leaders. We all know politicians are known to bend the truth, and even hide the truth from time to time. There is no disputing that. I’m sure McCain has his own baggage along that line. But one thing McCain does not have is a long line of friends that have proven they are anti-American by their actions.

How many times does Barack Obama have to be asked to please explain his relationships with them? He doesn’t want to. He says they are in the past. Are they? Just this year, he was still attending the church of Jeremiah Wright, who G D’s America at every opportunity. If you didn’t buy into that mindset, would you sit in a pew in his church for almost 20 years? Nobody made Obama stay there. Obama defended Wright countless times, until Wright stepped over the line, and got cocky at the press club breakfast. Then there’s Rezko. He has his own story of corruption, and is now in prison. But, until his relationship with Rezko became headline news, Obama was still buds with him. And what about Ayers? Yes what about him, Obama? He had the gall on the final debate to try to sell the public that Ayers just lived in the neighborhood, and Ayers actions took place when Obama was just a boy. What kind of idiots does Obama take us for? It’s already been proven Obama kicked off his initial intro into politics in the living room of Ayers. People don’t do that for strangers. So why is it, that the media and so many of the public don’t care about Obama’s credibility? He clearly has none. How can we ever trust a word he says, or put forth the trust of our entire nation into his hands?

Just this month, a federal judge gave Obama 30 days to present his official birth certificate. He did not comply. Instead of holding Obama in contempt, he dismissed the case. Who really knows where Obama was born. It’s his maternal grandmother’s word, against his paternal grandmother’s word, who says she was right there, when he was born in Kenya. Never mind the constitution, which requires any presidential candidate to be a valid Natural born citizen. Now, all of the sudden after Obama's quick little trip over to Hawaii to visit his ailing Grandmother, his birth certificate has been sealed by the govenor. Why?

Without trust, none of the other issues matter. They can say whatever they want, including promising the sun, the moon and the stars, and even that they can cure all, and Obama is doing just that. Without credibility we really won’t know who’s coming home to roost.

You want me to vote for you for president. Well, I need to know everything I can possibly know about you, if you want me to entrust you with all of the powers that come with the oval office.

Why is it that you feel it is not my business to know everything about your background, and your friendships and associates. You and your campaign have called those kinds of questions dirty campaign tactics. I call them necessary information, for an informed voter. Nothing you do, or have ever done should be “off limits”, as far as my vote is concerned. I don’t want short answers, I want details. I want to know who and what you were doing everything with, ever since your high school years. I want to see your original birth certificate, you college thesis, and I want to know every organization you have belonged to, and contributed to. I want to see your original birth certificate. Why is it now sealed? Do you have something to hide?

You are a great speaker, and you have told us all that you are going to make change for the better, yet I have not ever heard you detail any of your plans, or explanations for what better is. I would like to know why you think we should give our government more power, when even you know how our congress has terribly abused the process, and exceeded all reasonable spending on projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the running of a national government. I want you to explain to my why we should move further and further away from our constitution, which is the rock this nation was founded on. And while you are at it, will you please show me where in our constitution it says the government shall provide anything for any citizen, other than the defense of foreign threats?

You speak of the need for a strong military, but I would like to know why you did not ever feel the desire to serve our country in one of our armed forces?

You insist now, that the economy is the most important issue on the table, but where were you when it was time to reign in the people in congress that were promoting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when they were paying their executives millions, while they were running banks bankrupt? Why can you not say now, that the the most important thing our congress can do to help the situation, is freeze all spending, other than the necessary budget it costs to keep our military prepared, our government running, and our infrastructures sound? Do you not think this is a real crisis?

I have many more questions about your healhtcare plan. You say you want everyone to have the same exact coverage you have as a senator, but just exactly how do you intend on paying for that, without running more businesses overseas, by taxing them out of business? Do you not realize we are in a crisis, as you keep reminding us? So, where is all of this money going to come from?

One more thing, Senator, before I can even try to seriously consider you as a candidate. You helped organize ACORN. That is already on the record. You have given ACORN money. You now must know, even if you didn’t before, about their illegal operations in buying multiple voting registrations for people, so why have you not yourself denounced them, and demanded a full and complete investigation.

You need to hurry, Senator. You only have a few days left to clear up these doubts in the minds of millions of hard working, tax paying citizens out here just like me, that have so many questions as to just what exactly you are all about, and why you haven’t given us full and complete disclosure. If you cannot be upfront and honest, I will have no other choice, than to vote for your opponent, who's life is an open book.Sincerely,

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Caveat lector: While I do understand that the channeling of a living person is not possible - even as I do not subscribe to the notion of channeling at all - at the time of this writing I was lacking for a better word. Somehow, "parroting" just didn't seem to make the grade.

For anyone who has trouble understanding the message from Jeremiah Wright through the screaming, rasping delivery he employs, help is here. While Obama has claimed that he was not aware of some of the more radical views of his mentor, Rev. Wright, there is new audio of Barack Obama from 1995 speaking about the societal ills of America, and he sounds like a calmer, if not any more articulate, version of the man to whom he has listened for more than twenty years.

It would appear that Obama listened much more intently through those years than he has admitted. The message was instilled on him in 1995, and he has been attending Rev. Wright's "sermons" for an additional thirteen years since. One must wonder how much more he has absorbed in that time.

What is of paramount interest here is the fact that Obama has been, and continues to be, someone with a narrow agenda who wants to run the most ethnically diverse country on the planet. An all-inclusive administration seems a futile hope under a President Obama. It stands to reason that someone will be left out in the cold.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

As election day draws near - and if polls are to be believed - more than half of the American electorate is poised to change America. What is most ironic is the demographic that puts a very large portion of that half in the "recent immigrant" category. "Recent immigrant" is a term meaning up to a generation. These are relatively new citizens of the country, and odds are they either came here or were brought here by parents for a reason; a better life than they had from whence they came.

I classify people opposed to the American way of life in two categories:Group One: People who are either too busy running their own countries into the ground, or people who are the victims and prisoners of the former.

Group Two: Leftists who are citizens of this country that insist that we emulate foreign ways and laws in spite of the fact that immigrants come here to avoid those ways and laws.

What I find maddening is the fact many refugees from group one overwhelmingly end up voting for the candidates produced by group two. Even more puzzling is how foreign pundits are able to see this when many of us cannot. Regarding the impending coronation of Barack Obama, Melanie Phillips of the UK's Spectator asks a good question: Is America really going to do this? In this excerpt, she acknowledges a level of discomfort with McCain, but explains quite adequately why Obama would be worse.

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.

Anyone who claims that America is perfect is a liar but there can be no argument that it is the most desired destination for a new life. Perfection is the goal of a fool, for without Divinity, it is virtually unachievable. Likewise, a purely logical outlook is not possible, no matter the desire of he who seeks it. From Bill Whittle:

I recently visited a website that featured a picture of Star Trek�s Mr. Spock, with the caption: My hero! Someone who thinks his way out of trouble! The implication, of course, is that force and violence are universally to be rejected and despised as unworthy of thinking people (or Vulcans).

Well bucko, Spock carried a phaser as well as a tricorder, and he used it when he had to. If the Star Trek future represents a hope for our species at its most reasonable and open-minded best, it would be well to remember that the Enterprise carried a hell of a lot of photon torpedoes because the cause of human decency cannot be advanced if all the decent humans lie dead.

To the many who scorn the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as the dangerous plaything of illiterate, mindless oafs who enjoy loud noises, let me simply refer you to that great unbiased and incorruptible teacher: History.

And yet here we stand, on the precipice of a new day in America. Again, if polls are to be believed, we are about to change America forever and yank the rug out from under all those who came here for the American dream. It will be a bitter pill to swallow for those who suffered on their journey to this land. I just hope they don't take out their collective frustrations on the wrong people. I also pray that this post is in no way prophetic of the burning of Rome. I want Nero to have wasted his time.
Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 24, 2008

The only people who seem to regard associating with enemies of America as reprehensible are those opposed to Obama. The candidate and his supporters seem content to deflect all questions on the matter of William Ayers and defiantly deem them inconsequential. Obama has, on more than one occasion, employed the defense that Ayers' "deplorable acts were committed when Obama was eight years old".

Another defense of the Weather Underground founder is the fact that he never killed anyone and that he never went to prison. Both true, the latter because of investgative misconduct by the FBI in their pursuit of conviction, and the former true only in the case of Ayers himself. Three police officers were killed in gunfights with other members of the group, however, and they also planned to kill as many soldiers as possible at a Fort Dix dance with a nail bomb in 1970. Fortunately, the bomb makers only succeeded in blowing themselves to smithereens during construction of the bomb.

The real damning aspect of this heinous group never came to fruition, thank God. To demonstrate just what this "respected UIC professor" had planned for us, watch this video of Larry Grathwohl, an undercover agent who infiltrated the group.

Yes, had William Ayers' group been successful in their revolution, as many as twenty five million of us would have been "eliminated". And he teaches America's youth. And Obama says in one breath that it was so long ago it doesn't matter, and yet still feels compelled to try to disavow a closeness with the fiend despite all the evidence to the contrary. What's worse are the lemmings who also dismiss this all as rubbish and meaningless.

So I offer a hypothetical situation that I have pondered lately. Let's say Osama bin Laden is still alive at 91 years of age and was formerly teaching at an American University. I wonder if some 15-year-old kid, running for president 40 years from now, would be able to do what Obama is doing today by associating with Osama. I wonder if people would accept his lame explanation that he was only eight years old when the Twin Towers came down?

From what I have seen happen in the past year and a half, nothing would surprise me.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

It would appear from the polls that John McCain has almost no chance of victory on election day. Barack Obama is busy preparing his coronation stage and the victory orgy to follow that event. Media outlets gleefully trumpet the prospect of a glorious November 4th while futilely continuing the pretense of objectivity.

The effect is palpable on the the general electorate hoping for a McCain triumph. Republicans, Conservatives and anyone else vehemently opposed to the advent of President Obama wear a mask of doom and an air of gloom. It is the desired effect of the Obama disciples. A war of attrition without any bloodshed.

It is a tactic used historically to remove or diminish the spirit to fight in one's opponent. If enough people are convinced that victory is beyond their capability, they will simply surrender or flee.

Attila The Hun was notorious for this. Having his fearsome reputation preceding him, he was able to announce boldly when and where he was about to strike, which had an instant, albeit somewhat tepid, effect on the inhabitants of the target. That was stage one of the plan. He would then have his army encircle the fortress or village at a distance conducive to sound but limited sight, and camp for days while having his drummers beat the war sound day and night. The terror this instilled in those who were not convinced on the announcement of imminent attack alone did the trick. Many would flee the city to save themselves from certain horror.

On many occasions, when Attila finally invaded, there were few left inside, and the ones who stayed to plead for mercy were often stunned at the size of the invading army. Had the rest stayed to fight, it was entirely possible that they could have repelled the attack, but now it was too late.

The lesson here is clear. If everyone decides to avoid the polling place to spare themselves the "inconvenience of voting in vain", it will mean certain defeat on November 4th. If we allow the constant drumbeat of the pollsters to invade our collective psyches and the election is close anyway, we will be left wearing the same look of bewilderment that the remaining villagers wore when Attila's small army rode into the center of town.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

It was the mid-60's, and I really had no idea what was going on around me as far as the world stage was concerned. My main pursuits, especially in summer, lay mainly in that which was most sought by my peers: playing all day. I do remember vividly, however, what I thought then were boring, eye-rolling diatribes administered by my grandfather about the fall of America, and how it would all come crashing down around me not by a beach-head invasion that our soldiers were unable to repel (something I couldn't possibly envision anyway), but by my very own neighbors, which was even more incomprehensible to me at that age, hence the eye-rolling, bangs-blowing impatience to go back out to play.

As I have grown older, I have subscribed more and more to the notions of that man whom I still miss after nearly 40 years, but it has still been a long and winding road to where I know stand, trembling. The ideas he had implanted in my mind were always there and yet were always a bad dream that I pushed back as simply too ludicrous to entertain seriously. Now, though, the closet door has cracked open as I struggled to sleep, and of its own volition. Now, I am wide awake and sleep is an impossibility as I lay soaking the sheets with perspiration even as I shiver.

Michelle Malkin's Hot Air had an article today which included many video presentations that have only added to my angst, which is barely countered by my pride in my grandfather's prescience, and which is a bittersweet vindication and therefore little solace to my insomnia. The lefties are winning.

William Ayers is touted by the Obama people, and society in general, as a "respected university professor", despite his past as a self-described enemy combatant of America. Here, you can listen to what he is likely "teaching" to your college darlings:

Ayers speaks of having open eyes for the first time and seeing a world that could be. He then goes on to say that he loves "the slogan from the World Social Forum".

"Another world is possible".

Perhaps this is why Obama can successfully deflect criticism of Ayers while simultaneously marking him as toxic to the campaign. The media will never ask why, if this cretin is such a respected member of the UIC, Obama doesn't embrace him outwardly. They know the answer, and they are complicit in the "dreams of my grandfather".

The enemy has not only entrenched itself without our knowledge, they did so while we vigilantly scanned the shores for Peter Benchley's Jaws. It was the Hollywood enabling factor. How cunning.

As for Ayers views of burning streets, I for one would rather fight through the flames of burning streets to preserve our way of American life than to succumb to the placid serenity of a snow covered landscape reminiscent of the wintry streets of Soviet Moscow.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

In the final Presidential debate on Wednesday night from Hofstra University in New York, John McCain touched on something that almost went unnoticed. When discussing tax cuts, Obama engaged in not only some revisionist speech, re-stating in different terms things he had said as recently as a few days before, but he also made claims that are disconcerting, at best, and frightening at worst. McCain astutely pointed out at one point that one has to listen very carefully to what Obama says because his smooth eloquence has an hypnotic effect that causes the actual message to become secondary. Very well said, indeed.

Obama continually makes the claim that his plan is to cut taxes for ninety-five percent of working Americans, a nice message that becomes all the more palatable when delivered in such soothing tones as Obama's. People believe it. Consider, however, that roughly forty percent of working Americans pay no income taxes and one has to ask the question; will those forty percent thus receive a free check from an Obama government? That sounds suspiciously like a Marxist philosophy, taking money from upper income folks and "spreading the wealth".

Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe The Plumber", was told flat out by Obama that spreading the wealth is good for everybody. Obama also did not refute Joe's assertion that he was going to be taxed at a higher rate if he bought the plumbing business where he has been employed. He acknowledged that Joe would be taxed at a higher rate while saying that he "didn't want to punish him".

Yet, at the debate, Obama tried to spin what he said to Joe into something else. He claimed that what he actually told Joe was that he needed tax cuts five years ago, when he was struggling to scrape up the money to buy the business. Again, not true, as evidenced by the fact that now, five years later, Joe is ready to buy the business without any help from an Obama "tax cut". To make matters worse, Obama may stand in the way of Joe seeing his dream come to fruition.

Combined with Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, saying that they want to take money and put it into the pockets of middle class Americans, I can see no other moniker than the U.S.S.A. in our future. Welfare has been a target of politicians on both sides of the aisle in the past decade, but now Obama wants to pass go and begin taxing upper income people and issuing checks to lower income people? It's not even welfare. It's redistribution of wealth.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

How to sort the rhetoric from fact...that is a task thrust upon the electorate in any election year, and the enormity of it is magnified in the cycle of the General Election for President. What to make of the myriad campaign ads is something through which we must all sift and subsequently debate amongst our peers, sometimes in heated fashion. We make enemies of our closest family members in these times in the most benign of cycles, but this year is probably one of the most volatile we'll see (hopefully) in the foreseeable future.

In this new age of instant video and visual "proof", we should have seen a narrowing of the divide that, in recent history, so heavily relied on opinion alone. We should have been freed from the burden of having to explain why "X" was so by simple virtue of the moving-picture evidence we could readily produce. But the process of editing thus became the focus of debate rather than the context of that which was actually uttered. So quick are we to do battle along lines that should have little merit.

A good case in point is the following video from an ACORN function in December of 2007.

Please take special note of not only the ominous tone of the meeting, but also of the fact that Obama and his acolytes created the financial crisis in which we now find ourselves. Further, take note that Obama then says that the organization will be called upon to "shape the agenda" of his administration.

"We're gonna be having meetings, all across the country, with community organizations, so that you have input into the agenda of the next Presidency of the United States of America."

Just imagine a Republican candidate telling a Bob Jones University crowd, e.g., that they'd help forge a new administration policy. Now imagine not knowing anything about it due to a failure to report by the MSM? Is there any doubt that the ensuing uproar would produce anything less than short-term loss of hearing? (What? I can't hear you!)

Sometime before millions of people pull the curtain and vote for our new leader, it is imperative that voters understand that a vote against Obama is not automatically a racist act. By all means, if you want Obama, vote that way but I implore you, don't feel compelled to vote for him just for the sake of appearance.

Do NOT be cowed into voting against your beliefs for the sake of an alleged clear conscience somewhere down the road. The road may not be there when it comes time to explain yourself.

For a few years now, we've probably all been inundated with well-meaning emails from family and friends beseeching us to boycott this gas station or avoid that one, all in an attempt to influence prices. Some of you have heeded that advice and some have merely deleted the emails due to a belief that we had no chance of affecting the price at the pump. That may have been true in the recent past, as I was skeptical as well, but I think that the efforts then were more geared to getting the recipients to alter their habits so that the senders could continue on the paths they had enjoyed.

I don't intend to denigrate the senders, as I firmly believe that there was no nefarious motive behind any email campaign to affect change in the buying habits of those to whom the emails were sent, but I do believe that it is human nature to depend on others to implement change in one's own reticence to do so. Again, I do not condemn, as I have been equally as guilty at some point in my life.

What we have seen of late, however, is a genuine desire to end the escalating and meteoric rise of the price at the pump, combined with a definite inability of many to do anything other than a stark cessation of prior purchasing practices. People finally reached a point where they had no choice but to embark on an unwitting, while coordinated, embargo at the corner gas station. Nationwide, demand has waned.

The result is that which previous and deliberately coordinated attempts have failed to achieve; we have succeeded in altering the price at the pump. To be certain, it has been painful to many and life-altering - albeit on a small scale - but we have managed to navigate through it with relative ease.

I write this in an attempt to remind people that we still have the power, in a capitalistic society, to effect change if we only realize that we do. More importantly, we must remember that we have this power before it becomes more painful than we'd like to begin the process. So far, we have had the good fortune to avoid economic disaster in our habits, but we may not always have time on our side. To be concise, please give more credence to emails in the future that beg for consolidated power to us, the consumers. We do have control, but not if we depend on someone else to hold the wheel.

I'll get right to the point; to make one appear crazy requires little more than simply ignoring what he has to say. All the mainstream media has to do is not report on a particular story and it becomes a fringe element as if by magic. The Watergate break-in by associates of Nixon could have been a meaningless blip had Woodward and Bernstein chosen to pooh-pooh the entire affair, but they thought - correctly, I might add - that the Constitutional violations were too great to ignore.

Suddenly, however, the media doesn't seem to regard the Constitutional requirements to become President as relevant, as is the case with the Philip Berg federal lawsuit alleging that Obama does not, indeed, meet those requirements. One would think - no, expect - that a media with an ounce of journalistic curiosity would vigorously investigate these charges, if for nothing else but to speed their candidate to exoneration. That has not been the case, however.

Perhaps there is more to this than one would like to believe as it has become apparent that the efforts are all geared toward hoping that the story simply vanishes. Obama and the DNC are fighting the suit by Berg in the courts, and again there seems to no "there" there, and outright denial appears to be sufficient. Berg has a video on YouTube that seems rather forthright. It can be viewed below:

I encourage anyone reading to watch the entire ten minutes, and then think about why there is virtual silence in the mainstream media regarding this federal lawsuit. The very resistance by the Obama camp and the DNC should be cause enough to warrant a closer inspection of the facts, but again, that is not the case. The tactic has proven quite effective as anyone who has occasioned to discuss this with an Obama supporter can attest.

One person can be absolutely correct, but if nineteen say otherwise, then the one righteous individual is regarded as a kook. Likewise, if a willing media refuses to participate in a transparent examination of these charges, it becomes all the more easy to dismiss them as baseless, and to continue to make assertions such as Berg has been doing only relegates him to the realm of crazy zealot.

I, for one, do not believe that to be true, but I am sadly among the one-in-twenty who think that way.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Sometimes I find myself getting too serious and too embroiled in the political drama, especially in an election season. One thing that always makes me smile is someone who can truly master a musical instrument.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Here we go again; the main stream media refuses to call a democrat out on blatant lies, miscues, and statements that - if made by a republican - would be assailed as racist. And the practice is so pervasive now that it's barely perceptible to the casual reader. People glibly accept everything they read in the newspaper or what they hear from the nightly news talking heads or, worse yet, from shows like The View.

All the coverage lately has been focused on Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson and the allegedly awful performances she offered up. I say allegedly because while viewers all saw for themselves, they were not treated to the interviews in their entirety. Much of Palin's commentary was left on the cutting room floor and so we saw only what Gibson and Couric wanted us to see. It's no wonder that she appears so much better when we see her in full context, at the debate and in her RNC speech.

When the full transcript of the Gibson interview is read, and one sees the comments by Palin that were edited out, a whole new picture emerges, and the blatant hatchet job perpetrated by Gibson on Palin becomes clear. While many viewers were either stunned or pleasantly surprised by Palin's magnificent performance at the debate, I'll bet that Gibson was not at all surprised. Regarding Joe Biden, we're always told how smart he is by the media and also by himself, so when he makes gross mistakes like thinking that FDR was on TV in 1929, no one says a word about it. When he doesn't know the difference between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it doesn't get a mention, but the media goes apoplectic when Palin won't divulge her reading list.

Then there are the fourteen lies that Biden told during the debate. Number five in the list deals with Biden's claim that he's always supported clean coal. But in this video, he's heard clearly telling an environmentalist in Ohio that he doesn't support clean coal and says, "No coal in America."

No major media outlets care about the blatant lies and distortions of the Democrats and they don't care to investigate any aspect of Obama's life despite the fact that there is much we don't know about him. He just gets a pass.

The mainstream media's claims of journalistic neutrality is a joke that most people don't seem to get. They just assume that if the media doesn't report it, it must not be important, and they don't even realized they're being lied to, which is an injustice that will, obviously, never be reported.